1. Introduction
7.3 Limitations and further research
of the data. However, in this respect, it is noticeable that, on request of the participants, five of the interviews are conducted in German and later on translated to English by the two researchers. This, in turn, can pose a risk of unintendedly misrepresenting the participants’ statements. Lastly, through-out the entire process, the study was carried through-out by two researchers, so that the subjectivity in terms of generating, analyzing, and interpreting the data is reduced. However, it needs to be carefully con-sidered that the researchers both show the same educational background which might result in the same expectation towards the results of the data. This in turn could show a negative impact on the credibility.
Lastly, the quality criterion of transferability is to be regarded in the context of the conducted re-search. In other words, the extent to which the study and its results are to be transferred to other subject areas and or samples is to be assessed (Saunders et al., 2016). Generally, due to the nature of qualitative research and the rather small sample sizes involved, it tends to be difficult to generalize qualitative data. Even though a sample of participants with eight different nationalities, a balanced gender distribution and an age range of eleven years was intended to reflect diversity and thus to compile a representative sample of Millennials in the study at hand, the findings can only be trans-ferred to a limited extent. For the study at hand, the purposive sampling method is applied to ensure that criteria such as the general interest in LFBs and previously carried out engagement with and purchase of such LFBs are met. However, at the same time this implies a biased composition of the sample. Moreover, and largely due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the sample is mostly composed of participants from the extended personal network, which in turn entails a higher number of students within the sample. On top of that, the explorative approach of the research and its subse-quent character of a fundamental study in the respective field builds the base, from which hypotheses for further research can be drawn. Within the theoretical contributions (see chapter 7.1), some refer-ences are made to the extent to which the conducted research corresponds with existing theories, which in turn contributes to the transferability. However, it must be emphasized that although these measures enhance the transferability of the study, a qualitative study and an accompanying non-prob-ability sample can never be generalized.
This leads to recommendations for action in future research. The credibility and transferability of the research at hand could thereby be increased and supported by carrying out triangulation, meaning to include more than one source and method of data collection and therefore performing a multi-method study. Such triangulation could extend the research in its depth, complexity and richness (Denzin, 2012; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Exemplarily, the addition of another qualitative method, such as group discussions – even if consciously decided against them due to a deliberate focus on the indi-vidual – could broaden and deepen the insights in this area. Furthermore, adding quantitative follow-up studies in order to test potential hypotheses generated from the findings and to examine relation-ships between the different variables serves as another opportunity for future research (Saunders et al., 2016).
Second, limitations regarding the sample become apparent. In this vein, the sample size needs to be critically reflected. The sample is limited to twelve participants – 14 if including the pre-test inter-views – mainly due to the scope and complexity of the master thesis. According to the method of GT, generating data is continued until theoretical saturation is reached and therefore no further insights are gained by adding new participants (Saunders et al., 2016). Due to the size of the master thesis, this could not be carried out properly and was instead limited to 14 participants in order to plan for the given time frame. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that theoretical saturation was reached. Add-ing on this, theoretical saturation in the regard of the chosen method presents a highly subjective measure and is thereby strongly dependent of the assessment of the researchers. Thus, follow-up studies are recommended, which could further shed light on the topic and explore further relevant CE types and influences on the dimensions of the SC.
The investigation on the Millennials yields in other limitations of the research at hand. First, investi-gating on the generation of Millennials entails an age group of those born between 1981 and 2000.
However, the study at hand only regards an age range of eleven years. Given the fact that the oldest
the different age groups or other potential criteria. Exemplarily, Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau (2019) suggest to separate the generation into two subgroups based on their age as they point out that the two subgroups would have grown up in different environments with regard to, amongst other things, economics and technology.
Concerning the customers of LFBs, the Chinese customers can also be highlighted. By increasing shares within the consumer statistics, these can be identified as a promising customer segment, which will become more and more important within the industry. In this respect, China is in some cases even highlighted as the driver of the luxury market (D’Arpizio & Levato, 2019). However, this cus-tomer segment is neglected in the sample considered in the present study. Thus, a more differentiated investigation on the various cultures becomes also advisable. In particular, similarities and differences both in relation to the CE types with LFBs and their influence on the customer’s SC could be identi-fied, which in turn could result in more differentiated ways of addressing the different cultures and corresponding customers.
Lastly, limitations can be identified that relate to the conceptualization of the model. It becomes cru-cial to highlight that the study represents a fundamental study with the aim to give a holistic impres-sion of the different types of CE which are carried out with regard to LFBs, as well as to shed light on the influence of such CE on the customer’s SC. However, due to this all-encompassing and ex-plorative approach several limitations arise.
One of them being that the understanding of CE as a whole requires critical reflection. Although the different types of CE with LFBs are identified and classified, the analysis of the influences of CE on the Millennial’s SC does not consider the individual influences of the CE types. Accordingly, it was neglected whether certain CE types have a stronger or weaker influence on the SC, or whether some of them even show no influence at all. The individual correlations with regard to this would have to be examined more closely in subsequent studies.
Also concerning the CE types, limitations regarding the categorization of the CE types can be pointed out. In the research at hand, the different types of CE were categorized according to the location where the CE takes place, e.g. online or offline. This, however, presents only one of many possibilities for categorizing such types – however, not with the data available in the study at hand. Using a dif-ferent research approach, one could have categorized the individual CE types according to how active or passive the execution of the individual types is. In this case one could further investigate whether the active or passive involvement in the engagement influences the SC in different ways.
The model also sheds light on how CE with LFBs influences the SC of the customer. However, this does not take into account whether the model needs to be supplemented by possible mediators or moderators. The inclusion of such mediators or moderators is neglected in the present study and, instead, a direct influence is assumed. However, in follow-up studies, for example, one could inves-tigate whether the above-mentioned activity level of the CE, a high self-confidence/ self-esteem of the participants, or similar factors might have an influence as potential mediators or moderators.
As with the categorization of the CE types, the categorization of the SC into the four dimensions actual self, ideal self, social self and ideal social self can also be critically questioned. Based on the literature, it appears reasonable to subdivide SC according to these four dimensions and to particularly contrast the aspects of the current and ideal, as well as the self-related and the social-related self.
However, the literature shows different multi-dimensional approaches to establish the dimensions of the SC, so that a different classification could have been applied as well (see chapter 2.3). In further research, the SC could be viewed from different angles or other perspectives. Also, the classification into the four above-mentioned dimensions and the subsequent reasonability could be quantitatively confirmed in subsequent studies.
As already mentioned above, the influences on the SC are assigned to the four dimensions or are categorized according to them. In this regard, however, it is to be viewed critically that the allocation of the different influences is done based on the subjective judgement of the two researchers. Although this is grounded in and carried out in line with the definitions of the four dimensions, it still remains a subjective categorization rooted in the opinion of only two researchers, and thus must be considered as a limitation of the study. Further research is needed to clarify the corresponding allocation of in-fluences to the respective dimensions or, if necessary, to falsify them. In this context, the boundaries between the dimensions are partially blurry, so that it must be questioned whether the allocation is made in the best possible way or whether the influences should have been allocated differently. Again,
dimensions the influence of the CE with LFBs has the greatest impact. However, a parameter would have to be developed according to which the strength of the influence is assessed.
Finally, and as mentioned above, the study and the model are concerned with the way in which the CE with LFBs influences the customer’s SC. However, the model does not encompass whether such an influence on the SC in turn affects whether and to what extent CE with LFBs is carried out. This means that the model does not include whether the processes possibly take place in a circulation. As pointed out in the literature review and the theoretical contributions, academia is aware of concepts related to the self working as a motivating factor to initiate or trigger CE (see chapter 2.4.1.1). How-ever, it is not known whether such processes are circular or are proceeding in a continuum. Under the assumption of such a cycle-like process, it could be investigated whether the influenced SC gives an impulse or serves as motivation to perform CE. In this context, it would also be interesting to know whether one of the dimensions of SC plays a specific role. Accordingly, it would be interesting to find out whether the influence on a particular one of the four dimensions in turn has a specially acti-vating or motiacti-vating effect on potential CE or whether some of the dimensions show no influence.
Another limitation regarding the SC arises from the fact that some authors describe the SC as situa-tional and context-dependent (Schenk & Holman, 1980) and as varying and evolving over time (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1987). Although the study at hand is a cross-sectional study (see chapter 4.5), it therefore needs to be stressed that the study at hand only provides a snapshot of the status quo, illus-trating how the SC of the Millennials is influenced at this point in time. Future studies with the same object of investigation could provide information on whether the influences of CE with LFBs on the SCs change with increasing age or if it will unfold in a different way.
Throughout the course of the conclusion and discussion of the study, it becomes apparent that the respective thematic field does not just present a relevant field but moreover a promising area for future research.
List of References
Abtan, O., Barton, C., Bonelli, F., Gurzki, H., Mei-Pochtler, A., Pianon, N., & Tsusaka, M. (2016).
Digital or die: The choice for luxury brands. The Boston Consulting Group, 12.
Alleres, D. (2003). Luxe: Metiers et management. In T. Hines & M. Bruce (Eds.), Fashion market-ing: Contemporary issue (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Amatulli, C., & Guido, G. (2011). Determinants of purchasing intention for fashion luxury goods in the Italian market. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021111112386
Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing - the experience is everything! Journal of Brand Management, 16(5–6), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.48
Auty, S., & Elliott, R. (1998). Fashion involvement, self-monitoring and the meaning of brands.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(2), 109–123.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429810216874
Banyte, J., & Dovaliene, A. (2014). Relations between customer engagement into value creation and customer loyalty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.226
Bazi, S., Filieri, R., & Gorton, M. (2020). Customers’ motivation to engage with luxury brands on social media. Journal of Business Research, 112, 223–235.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.032
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1086/208911 Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury: a conceptual and historical investigation.
Bhullar, N., & Malouff, J. (2013). The nature of well-being: The roles of hedonic and eudaimonic processes and trait emotional intelligence. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 147, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.667016
Biggs, K. (2020). Luxury brands: Why it’s time to get more intimate. Retail Customer Experience.
Black, K. (2010). Business statistics: Contemporary decision making (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Bolton, R. N. (2011). Comment: Customer engagement: Opportunities and challenges for organiza-tions. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 272–274.
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029
Bruce, M., & Kratz, C. (2007). Competitive marketing strategies in luxury fashion companies. In T.
Hines & M. Bruce (Eds.), Fashion marketing: Contemporary issues (2nd ed.). Elsevier/ But-terworth-Heinemann.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). Feminist qualitative research and Grounded Theory:
Complexities, criticisms, and opportunities. In The Sage handbook of Grounded Theory (pp.
417–436). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n19
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Burden, R., & Proctor, T. (2000). Creating a sustainable competitive advantage through training.
Team Performance Management, 6, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590010348200 Burnasheva, R., GuSuh, Y., & Villalobos-Moron, K. (2019). Factors affecting Millennials’ attitudes
toward luxury fashion brands: A cross-cultural study. International Business Research, 12(6), 69–81.
Cabigiosu, A. (2020). Digitalization in the luxury fashion industry: Strategic branding for Millen-nial consumers. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Cardoso, P. R., Costa, H. S., & Novais, L. A. (2010). Fashion consumer profiles in the Portuguese market: Involvement, innovativeness, self-expression and impulsiveness as segmentation crite-ria. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(6), 638–647.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00891.x
Cass, A. O. (2001). Consumer self-monitoring, materialism and involvement in fashion clothing.
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 9(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3582(01)70166-8
Catry, B. (2003). The great pretenders: The magic of luxury goods. Business Strategy Review, 14(3), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8616.00267
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded Theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 359–380). Sage.
Chevalier, M., & Mazzalovo, G. (2008). Luxury brand management: A world of privilege. Wiley &
Sons.
Chiang, C.-T., Wei, C.-F., Parker, K. R., & Davey, B. (2017). Exploring the drivers of customer en-gagement behaviours in social network brand communities: towards a customer-learning model. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(17–18), 1443–1464.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1399922
Choi, S. (2003). The effects of the perceived product characteristics and conspicuous consumption on the fashion luxury involvement. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 27(2), 209–218.
Chu, S.-C., & Kamal, S. (2011). An investigation of social media usage, brand consciousness, and purchase intention towards luxury products among Millennials. In S. Okazaki (Ed.), Advances in Advertising Research (Vol.2): Breaking new ground in theory and practice (1st ed., pp.
179–190). Gabler.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. In Human nature and the social order.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods (10th ed.). McGraw Hill Edu-cation.
Corbellini, E., & Saviolo, S. (2010). Managing fashion and luxury companies.
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1997). Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism. Journal of Public Economics, 66(1), 55–71.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00016-9
Cox, J., & Dittmar, H. (1995). The functions of clothes and clothing (dis)satisfaction: A gender analysis among British students. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18(2), 237–265.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016513
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (3. ed.).
Csaba, F. F. (2008). Redefining luxury: A review essay.
D’Arpizio, C., & Levato, F. (2019). Bain-Altgamma 2019 worldwide luxury market monitor: The luxury customer is present.
Danziger, P. (2005). Let them eat cake: Marketing luxury to the masses - as well as the classes.
De Barnier, V., Falcy, S., & Valette-Florence, P. (2012). Do consumers perceive three levels of lux-ury? A comparison of accessible, intermediate and inaccessible luxury brands. Journal of Brand Management, 19(7), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.11
De Barnier, V., Rodina, I., & Valette-Florence, P. (2006). Which luxury perceptions affect most consumer purchase behavior: A cross cultural exploratory study in France, the United King-dom and Russia. International Marketing Trends Conference.
Deloitte. (2017). Bling it on: What makes a Millennial spend more?
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative re-search. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–19). Sage.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. Routledge.
Di Gangi, P., & Wasko, M. (2009). The co-creation of value: Exploring user engagement in user-generated content websites. In Pre-ICIS 8th Annual JAIS Theory Development Workshop.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. In The psychology of attitudes.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Eastman, J. K., & Liu, J. (2012). The impact of generational cohorts on status consumption: An ex-ploratory look at generational cohort and demographics on status consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211206348
Engward, H. (2013). Understanding Grounded Theory. Nursing Standard, 28, 37–41.
Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. In American Psychologist (Vol. 28, Issue 5, pp. 404–416). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034679
Etkin, J. (2016). The hidden cost of personal quantification. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, ucv095. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv095
Featherstone, M. (2014). Luxury, consumer culture and sumptuary dynamics. Luxury, 1(1), 47–69.
https://doi.org/10.2752/205118174X14066464962436
Fernandez, P. (2009). Impact of branding on Gen Y’s choice of clothing. Journal of the South East Asia Research, 1(1), 79–95.
Fionda, A. M., & Moore, C. M. (2009). The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5–6), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.45
France, C., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (2016). An integrated model of customer-brand engagement:
Drivers and consequences. Journal of Brand Management, 23, 119–136.
https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2016.4
Fromm, J., & Garton, C. (2013). Marketing to Millennials: Reach the largest and most influential generation of consumers ever.
Gable, S. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00373.x
Gallup. (2014). State of the American Consumer: Insights for Business Leaders.
Gil, L. A., Kwon, K.-N., Good, L. K., & Johnson, L. W. (2012). Impact of self on attitudes toward luxury brands among teens. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1425–1433.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.008
Gilmore, J., & Pine II, B. (2009). Using art to render authenticity in business. Arts & Business, 11–
58.
Giovannini, S., Xu, Y., & Thomas, J. (2015). Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y con-sumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(1), 22–40.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-08-2013-0096
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine.
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882643
Grotts, A. S., & Widner Johnson, T. (2013). Millennial consumers’ status consumption of hand-bags. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(3), 280–
293. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0067
Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior:
A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(4, PT. 1), 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1249461
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a Face-book brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211256578
Gurau, C. (2012). A life-stage analysis of consumer loyalty profile: Comparing Generation X and Millennial consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 103–113.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211206357
Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 608–618.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.007
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability:
an empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(4), 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239610129931
Halpert, J. (2012). Millennials: Young, broke, and spending on luxury. The Fiscal Times.
Haurum, H. (2018). Customer engagement behavior in the context of continuous service relation-ships. Copenhagen Business School. CBS.
Healey, M. J., & Rawlinson, M. B. (1994). Interviewing techniques in business and management research. In V. J. Wass & P. E. Wells (Eds.), Principles and practice in business and manage-ment research (pp. 123–146). Aldershot.
Heaney, J.-G., Goldsmith, R., & Wan Jusoh, W. J. (2005). Status consumption among Malaysian consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 17, 83–98.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v17n04_05
Heine, K. (2012). The concept of luxury brands (2nd ed.).
Hollebeek, L. (2011a). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493 Hollebeek, L. (2011b). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus.
Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 785–807.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M., & Brodie, R. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media:
Con-Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-crea-tion: A service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247–261.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514529187
Jäckel, M., & Kochhan, C. (2000). Notwendigkeit und Luxus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Konsums. In E. D. Rosenkranz & N. F. Schneider (Ed.), Konsum: Soziologische, ökonomische und psychologische Perspektiven (pp. 73–93). D. Rosenkranz & N. F. Schneider, eds.
Jackson, T. B. (2004). International retail marketing. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Jackson, T. B., & Shaw, D. (2004). The fashion handbook. Routledge Taylor Francis Group.
James, W. (1910). Psychology: Briefer course. New York: H. Holt and Company.
Jay, E. (2012). New breed of consumer shakes up luxury fashion.
Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, M. J. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 23–33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673345
Kaifi, B. A., Nafei, W. A., Khanfar, N. M., & Kaifi, M. M. (2012). A multi-generational workforce:
Managing and understanding millennials. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), 88–93. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p88
Kang, Y.-J., & Park, S.-Y. (2016). The perfection of the narcissistic self: A qualitative study on lux-ury consumption and customer equity. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3813–3819.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.073
Kapferer, J.-N. (1997). Managing luxury brands. Journal of Brand Management, 4(4), 251–259.
https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.1997.4
Kapferer, J.-N. (1998). Why are we seduced by luxury brands? Journal of Brand Management, 6(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.1998.43
Kapferer, J.-N. (2008). The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity long term (4. ed.).
Kapferer, J.-N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The luxury strategy. Kogan Page.
Kapferer, J.-N., & Michaut-Denizeau, A. (2019). Are Millennials really more sensitive to sustaina-ble luxury? A cross-generational international comparison of sustainability consciousness when buying luxury. Journal of Brand Management, 27(1), 35–47.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-019-00165-7
Kapferer, J.-N., & Michaut, A. (2014). Luxury counterfeit purchasing: The collateral of luxury brands’ trading down policy. Journal of Brand Strategy, 3(1), 59–70.
Kemp, S. (1998). Perceiving luxury and necessity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(5), 591–
606. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00026-9
Kim, A., & Ko, E. (2010). Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on customer relationship and purchase intention. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 1, 164–171.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2010.10593068
Kim, A., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An em-pirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research - J BUS RES, 65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014
Kisabaka, L. (2001). Marketing für Luxusprodukte. Fördergesellschaft Produktmarketing e.V.
Ko, E., Phau, I., & Aiello, G. (2016). Luxury brand strategies and consumer experiences: Contribu-tions to theory and practice. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5749–5752.
Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. (2019). Consumer psychological motivations to customer brand engage-ment: a case of brand community. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2018-2519
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010). Underval-ued or overvalUnderval-ued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375602
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of Market-ing Research, 53(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0044
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2017). Customer engagement - the construct, antecedents and conse-quences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6
Lantos, G. P. (2014). Marketing to Millennials: Reach the largest and most influential generation of consumers ever. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 401–403.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-03-2014-0909
Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency; a theory of personality. In Self-consistency; a theory of person-ality. Island Press.
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the cus-tomer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420 Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile Internet use
among teens and young adults.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124.
Libai, B. (2011). Comment: The perils of focusing on highly engaged customers. Journal of Service Research, 14, 275–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511414583
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage hand-book of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Sage.
Liu, X., Shin, H., & Burns, A. (2019). Examining the impact of luxury brand’s social media
market-tourism: the engagement process through credibility, desire and experience (pp. 59–84).
Lu, L., Bock, D., & Joseph, M. (2013). Green marketing: What the Millennials buy. Journal of Business Strategy, 34(6), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-05-2013-0036
Lüdemann, S. (2020). Luxury fashion report 2020.
Lusch, R. L., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.
Malhotra, N. K., Nunan, D., & Birks, D. F. (2017). Marketing research: An applied approach (5th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Mandrik, C. A. (1996). Consumer heuristics: The tradeoff between processing effort and value in brand choice.
Mason, R. S. (1981). Conspicuous consumption. a study of exceptional consumer behaviour.
Mckinney, L. N., Legette-Traylor, D., Kincade, D. H., & Holloman, L. O. (2004). Selected social factors and the clothing buying behaviour patterns of black college consumers. The Interna-tional Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14(4), 389–406.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0959396042000260861
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. In Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago.
Merrilees, B. (2016). Interactive brand experience pathways to customer-brand engagement and value co-creation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(5), 402–408.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2016-1151
Milliken, P. (2010). Grounded Theory. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design (pp. 549–554). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n169
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2010). Double hermeneutic. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 323–324). SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n122
Mittal, B. (2006). I, me, and mine—how products become consumers’ extended selves. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(6), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.202
Mittal, B. (2015). Self-concept clarity: Exploring its role in consumer behavior. Journal of Eco-nomic Psychology, 46, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.11.003
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014
Moore, C. M., & Birtwistle, G. (2004). The Burberry business model: Creating an international lux-ury fashion brand. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 412–
422. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550410546232
Mühlmann, H. (1975). Luxus und Komfort: Wortgeschichte und Wortvergleich.
Muntinga, D., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. Contributions To Zoology - CONTRIB ZOOL, 30, 13–46.
https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046